Just when you thought Bush couldn't surprise you...

This is a discussion on Just when you thought Bush couldn't surprise you... within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by MacGyver
That's not likely to happen, either, but I'm happy that the war is over in Iraq ...

So the lives of the Iraqis are worth less than the lives of Americans?

Please correct me if I'm reading that wrong.

I would rather the military is fighting the war out somewhere else than having American policemen, firefighters, and civilians experience another 9/11 on their own soil. The military is made up of men and women that have decided to put themselves in jepordy so that others don't have to. It's somewhat unfortunate that the Iraqis are in the middle of this war, but we can't change that.

On the subject of the Iraqis: Does the coalition do them a greater service in staying or leaving? Leaving means Iran will be free to put their claws inside the country, just like Syria has been doing to Lebanon. The insurgents will be there anyway whether we stay there or leave, but hopefully we prevent more terrorist attacks on our own soil.

If my view on this is not very palatable I'm sorry, but I think it's a better view than those that wish Saddam was still slaughtering them. If you've got a better solution, I'm willing to hear it.

I take it you are in support of the troop surge then. Otherwise, how else can the coalition be in a position to provide such protection?

Is it me or does the dog story sound a little phony? I just looked it over real quick, I admit, but the fact that al jazeera is promoting it makes me suspicious.

Originally Posted by psychopath

Islamic extremists were already mad for what they feel we've done to them and their countries. How is staying there shooting at them going to make any difference?

They are mad because they want a global islamic state and they don't have it.

BTW, if you're serious about asking what good it'll do to stick around and shoot at the terrorists, then I'll try to spell it out.

Here are your options in war:

Kill the enemy.

Capture the enemy.

Be captured by the enemy.

Be killed by the enemy.

Negotiate the reason for the conflict.

The last one is impossible because, as I already said, they want a global islamic state where they are the rulers. The cause won't be gone by simply giving them land because they want more than just land. They want more than just their own government. Look how many muslim countries there are, and they still are not satisfied. Negotiations are out of the question.

The enemy is not interested in the last 4 options, although they are interested in the 2nd one provided we all bow to their beliefs. The first one, though, is perfectly suitable for their needs.

I'm only interested in the first one at this point. Perhaps I'll mellow out in my old age, but as I've said, and as you pointed out, we've had enough bloodshed from the islamic extremists for some time. It's time to put an end to it. And for those that believe killing only promotes killing, I'm still convinced that by scientific means we can kill off more of these guys faster than they can breed new terrorists for battle.

The conditions you speak of are the so called holy men of the islamofascists that want to take over the world and create an islamist state according to their view of what islam is. Their message is one of hatred and disgust for the world.

Could you put that in a more biased way?

I also see you are keeping 'on message' with the 'cut and run' phrase.

If Iraq having WMD was a problem, why did the US not stop selling WMD to Iraq after the massacre of Kurds in 1988?

Sen Riegle’s report in 1994 found 771 shipments of precursors for WMD to Iraq from the US between 1985 and the first gulf war in 1991. (inc Anthrax, Sarin, Botulism, Gangrene…)

During these shipments it was well know what Sadam was doing with these WMD (using them on Iran and the Kurds, with CIA intel to target the attacks).

Bush snr knew that Iraq had used these US supplied WMD on Kurds in 1988 but kept sending Iraq WMD [last confirmed shipment by the CDC on 29 Nov 1989].

I take it you are in support of the troop surge then. Otherwise, how else can the coalition be in a position to provide such protection?

I do agree with this point. If we're going to be over there, there should be enough troops to protect civilians. If that means a troop surge, then unfortunatly so be it.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

They are mad because they want a global islamic state and they don't have it.

I saw an interview a little while ago. I can't remember if it was on CNN or BBC, but it was an interview with a terrorist. I can't remember everything that was in the interview (and I can't find a transcript anywhere), but I do recall the guy saying basically, that they are permitted to attack any country that has attacked Islam (and subsequently kill anyone from those offending countries). The only way I can see that the western world would've "attacked" Islam, is basically just by coming in contact with it, or something.

"[Osama bin Laden] said of his home country of Saudi Arabia that the U.S. was 'plundering its riches, corrupting its people and dictating to its rulers,'" Buchanan concluded. "True or not, that perception now fuels a murderous crusade."

To me it sounds like, just based on that, and the transcript divineleft posted, that we some how "tainted" Islam, and now they're ........ed. And then they use our attacks on them (in responce to their attacks) as further justification.

But I think the bigger problem, is that we can both speculate on why they do what they do, but no one seems to have actually tried to find out exactly why the conflict exists, so that maybe option #5 could have at least been attempted before the war was started.

And a slightly unrelated (and perhaps moot) point - I still can't figure out why the war was started in Iraq. The terrorists that attacked the US weren't from Iraq. And if they wanted to liberate a country so badly, why not do something about the genocide in Sudan?

And a slightly unrelated (and perhaps moot) point - I still can't figure out why the war was started in Iraq. The terrorists that attacked the US weren't from Iraq. And if they wanted to liberate a country so badly, why not do something about the genocide in Sudan?

I've wondered the same thing for a while. On one hand, I don't believe the administration has some diabolically stupid plan involving world domination or the sort... but on the other hand, I don't buy the nonsense reasons they gave.

I think the point of the war was to rebuild Iraq. If we pulled it off right, it would create regional stabilization and a de facto ally. Who knows, maybe on the way, we could help promote Jeffersonian democracy in Iran (yea, it sounds stupid looking back). There's a lot of stuff about Iraq that was kind of making it appropriate for this action:

Of all the strong countries in the region, Iraq is the most politically safe to occupy

Hussein was bound to die fairly soon. As a tyrant, his death would represent the loss of much of the country's political infrastructure and stability.

The country sits on huge oil assets, is demographically balkanized, and surrounded by enemies.

Also remember that before the war, it was reasonable to believe Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. I don't know how to gauge the importance of this, since it really needs to be judged in the context of all the other countries known to be developing nukes. I am inclined to believe the nuclear problem was only a contributing factor to the decision.

Of course, there's no statement by the administration indicating this, and it's not like I'm some DC insider. I just can't believe the reasons they have indicated. =(

For the sake of argument, let's assume these to be 100% correct. Therefore the US is guilty of creating the Saddam monster, and therefore it's the responsibility of the US to clean it up.

Sounds about right. So what's your point?

Originally Posted by novacain

I think you should look at some history to understand WHY these people are willing to give their lives to spread terror in the US (rather than blaming it on a religion).

I've studied history. Islamic terrorism is nothing new, and it's been going on for years. It's not just in the US that they are fighting. The most obvious other country to mention is Israel.

So did all of these countries that are in a war with islamic terrorists responsible for the same things that the US supposedly is? I think not.

As I said, they are interested in a global islamic state.

Originally Posted by novacain

Try looking up Orlando Busch Avila, pardoned by Bush snr. I suppose he is a ‘freedom fighter’ and not a ‘terrorist’.

OK, suppose it. And that does what for your argument? Actually, what is your argument anyway?

Originally Posted by psychopath

I saw an interview a little while ago. I can't remember if it was on CNN or BBC, but it was an interview with a terrorist. I can't remember everything that was in the interview (and I can't find a transcript anywhere), but I do recall the guy saying basically, that they are permitted to attack any country that has attacked Islam (and subsequently kill anyone from those offending countries). The only way I can see that the western world would've "attacked" Islam, is basically just by coming in contact with it, or something.

To me it sounds like, just based on that, and the transcript divineleft posted, that we some how "tainted" Islam, and now they're ........ed. And then they use our attacks on them (in responce to their attacks) as further justification.

But I think the bigger problem, is that we can both speculate on why they do what they do, but no one seems to have actually tried to find out exactly why the conflict exists, so that maybe option #5 could have at least been attempted before the war was started.

How do you begin to negotiate? What do you think they really want? And what do we negotiate about? How many of us we can let them kill?

You cannot negotiate with people that are bent on your destruction. Look at the current Iranian leader. He's all set to nuke everybody a few times.

Originally Posted by psychopath

And a slightly unrelated (and perhaps moot) point - I still can't figure out why the war was started in Iraq. The terrorists that attacked the US weren't from Iraq. And if they wanted to liberate a country so badly, why not do something about the genocide in Sudan?

Not quite related to 9/11. This was part of the Axis of Evil thing.

At this point, it's related to 9/11, though. The same people that were behind it, are now working on taking Iraq back away from our control and the control of the Iraqis.

So in the end, as I said before, this is preventing attacks on US soil. Granted, they may still try, but I'd rather have a bunch of them tied up in a building in Iraq with the military looking for them than free in New York settings bombs or something.

And btw, don't ask me about bombings countries. I want to nuke the world over a few times.

Just to point something out, a lot of people (namely Americans) have the misconception that Al-Qaeda and similar organizations are acting because they want to destroy other religions and establish Islam, or whatever. While this may be the case for some, Osama bin Laden has repeatedly stated that they are not acting, but reacting to the attacks made by the Western countries.

At this point, it's related to 9/11, though. The same people that were behind it, are now working on taking Iraq back away from our control and the control of the Iraqis.

I'm sure it was an oversight and you didn't mean "our control". Or maybe it was not an oversight and you are finally starting to understand some of the motivations behind the current civil war in Iraq.

Originally Posted by MacGyver

You cannot negotiate with people that are bent on your destruction. Look at the current Iranian leader. He's all set to nuke everybody a few times.

Be responsible with your wording. I'm looking at the current Iran's leader as you suggest, and I don't see any evidence that he wishes to use nuclear bombs. Sorry... I just don't buy any more the "pre-emptive strike" that lead us to the Iraqi war. Not I, and not the rest of the world. You are on your own. You can trust me on that.

Just to point something out, a lot of people (namely Americans) have the misconception that Al-Qaeda and similar organizations are acting because they want to destroy other religions and establish Islam, or whatever. While this may be the case for some, Osama bin Laden has repeatedly stated that they are not acting, but reacting to the attacks made by the Western countries.

They are also laughing at you when you repeat that line. When they say that the West is offensive to them, they mean that the West is offensive to them by existing. Same thing with Israel. They are not interested in land or government, except it be global.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I'm sure it was an oversight and you didn't mean "our control". Or maybe it was not an oversight and you are finally starting to understand some of the motivations behind the current civil war in Iraq.

No, I meant it, and even gave it thought before I said it. I said that terrorists "are now working on taking Iraq back away from our control and the control of the Iraqis." That is a valid statement, and I challenge you to correct me on it. At this point the coalition and the Iraqis are still fighting together against the invasion of Iranian-backed forces and the like, and this fight is a joint-operation. According to reports so far, the Iraqis are starting to step up on the military objectives, but are stalled on the political ones. TBH, if they solve the military one, they'll have gained political currency, so they're on their way.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Be responsible with your wording. I'm looking at the current Iran's leader as you suggest, and I don't see any evidence that he wishes to use nuclear bombs. Sorry... I just don't buy any more the "pre-emptive strike" that lead us to the Iraqi war. Not I, and not the rest of the world. You are on your own. You can trust me on that.

Chamberlain would be proud. History does repeat itself.

What more do you need from Iran to be convinced they're bent on bad things? They're meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as causing issues with Syria in Lebanon and Israel. Iran is bad news, and do you really think that once they get the ability to produce nuclear weapons that they would have any internal issue among themselves over the morality of breaking their word (which I don't believe they ever intended to keep), because of some event that will occur down the road, phony or otherwise? I think not.

Once they can do it, they will. For what they have now, they're doing a pretty good job causing problems around the world. Once they improve their weapons, they'll feel even bolder to pass a few nuclear weapons to terrorists groups. When those things go off and some terrorist group claims responsibility, what are we going to do about it? If Tehran is not obliterated, then you fail to adequately respond, which you must do in the event of a nuclear attack.

Overall, you go a greater service to the world if you stop this right now. If Iran is allowed the buildup of these weapons and eventually they start being used, it will be a needless catastrophe.

The central issue at hand is the Palestinians. If Israel retreats to pre 67 war borders and the Pals receive nation-status, Hamas' days are numbered. Start from that point. It's rather inconsequential what Iran does at this point. Their effectiveness, their rhetoric will die right alongside Hamas and Hezbolla (sp?).

As far as their nuclear program, yea, I believe they're pursuing nuclear weapontry, but it's rather pointless to consider them a threat to anyone (except perhaps Israel). They'd be completely destroyed if they ever launched such an attack, and I'm certain their Islamic leadership is aware of that -

(Mac, the U.S. would know where those nukes came from. If we're attacked by a rogue, terrorist nuke, you can be certain Iran would be gone).

Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of Israel, and as such, there is no negotiations with them to be had (since it's kind of hard to negotiate with someone that wants you dead). If Israel retreats to pre-1967 (which itself is a silly idea), then Hamas will interpret that as weakness, just like they did with the Gush Katif retreat just a few recent years back (in 2005 I believe).

Consider the events. Hamas took a huge advantage in publishing how they were the ones that caused Israel to reteat from Gush Katif. They prided themselves on this fact and broadcast it to the Palestinians that they were the ones responsible for this victory. Hamas and other terrorists from the north worked on kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and they were brazen about their war against Israel.

So who won the Palestinian elections after the Gush Katif withdrawal?

Hamas.

If Israel retreats to pre-1967 borders, this will only further expose weakness and allow Israel's enemies a better chance to strike.

Hamas is not involved with the current process though, Mac. If Abbas gets the Pals statehood, Fatah will be the heralded, not Hamas. This is perhaps the most important point, too. What extremists wish for is to continue the fight no matter the cost, statehood (or nation-status) is the last thing they want. It's a deathblow to their cause.

If there's any agreement for a palestinian state which explicitly or implicitly recognizes Israel as a state then the extremeists will launch more attacks...is that not what started the recent conflict into Lebanon with Hezbollah?

And Mac, I'm really just curious what the course in Iraq is going to be, namely, how long is it going to take, and why hasn't Iraq been stabilized already?

>>Chamberlain would be proud. History does repeat itself.

I do think that Iran's nuclear facilities should be bombed. I believe we aren't doing it because our leaders believe that Iran will push even harder to fusk us over in Iraq, similar to what we did to the USSR in Afghanistan before communism in the USSR collapsed.

I think that most of the world sees Iraq as an open wound bleeding the US. I don't believe we can truly sort out and stop who is doing what, because we don't have the troops, so I'm just interested in seeing that wound close. As you said, History does repeat itself, and I'm sort of interested in avoiding the fate of the USSR, or our debacle in Vietnam (are we going to have to lose 58,000 Americans in Iraq before we realize it's a wound that won't ever close?)